Facts of the Case:
Manish Sisodia (Respondent No.1) has been the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi since February 2015. In 2019, there was a press conference during which all 6 accused persons shared a platform and acted with common intent to defame Respondent No.1. Manoj Kumar Tiwari (Accused No.1) along with the other 4 accused in his defamatory statements alleged that Manish Sisodia is involved in corruption to the tune of Rs. 2000 crores in the matter of award of contract for building school classrooms in Delhi Government schools. The case against one Vijender Gupta (Accused No.5) is that he tweeted defamatory statements against Respondent No.1. The statements were basically in the form of 24 questions asking Respondent No.1 to clarify what was happening with the money in the matter of award of contract for building school classrooms in Delhi Government schools.
Therefore, a criminal complaint of defamation was filed by Respondent No.1 against 6 accused individuals, following which an order of summons was passed which was challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The challenge was unsuccessful and hence the same has now come up in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Accused and the Respondent:
Accused No.1 (Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
The contention of the Accused No. 1 is that since Respondent No.1 is covered under Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CRPC”) cognizance based on a private complaint cannot be taken without following the procedure laid down under Section 199(4).
Accused No.5 (Vijender Gupta)
The contention of Accused No.5 is that being a minister of UT, the procedure of 199(4) had to be followed; evidence of tweets not accompanied by a valid certificate as per Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act,1872 and that the tweets per se were not defamatory.
Respondent No.1 (Manish Sisodia)
It was contended that the special procedure under Section 199(4) won’t exclude general procedure under Section 199(6) and that prosecuting for defamation is every individual’s right which cannot be taken away.
Observation of the Court:
The Court discussed the trajectory of Section 199 (earlier Section 198). The timeline for the respective section is set out below:
- 1898: Original Section 198 of CRPC, 1898.
- 1943: Proviso was added to Section 198 via amendment.
- 1955: Law Commission was constituted to recommend changes and revisions of laws and a new provision i.e. Section 198B were inserted which laid down a special procedure for defamation against public servants.
- 1964: Changes were made to Section 198B, sub-section 5A, and 14 to 198B were inserted.
- 1969: 41st Report of Law commission came out and it recommended deleting Chapter XIX from Section 198 as offenses mentioned under this had nothing in common and their grouping together was faulty. However, it did not talk about the amendment of 1964 to section 198B which was very significant. The report also suggested that the provision should be limited to only those who constitute a part of the government, it is unnecessary to include all the government servants as it just puts the entire weight of the government against the accused. Another suggestion was to insert new provision 198B (13) in place of existing 198B (13) (14) sub-clauses to clarify that the right to file a complaint is preserved and is not affected by any other provision. (Section 199 (6) is verbatim 198B (13) as recommended by the 41st Report.)
- 1973: A draft bill based on the 41st Report was submitted and passed by both houses which later became CRPC,1973.
Findings of the Supreme Court:
The Court explained the working of Section 199 and held that the language of Section 199 (6) is simple and there are no conditions laid down as to when this right can be exercised. Section 199(6) starts with the word “nothing in this section” and therefore 199 (2) stands eclipsed by this, meaning that the right of the individual is saved under Section 199 (6) even if the person falls under Section 199 (2). The court opined that the special procedure introduced for public servants is in addition to and not in derogation with the right that the person i.e., the public servant has as an individual. Section 199 (6) cannot be made a dead letter by holding that people falling under 199 (2) only have recourse to section 199 (4) which is to say that the people falling under Section 199 (2) can either go for sections 199 (4) or 199 (6).
On basis of this, the Court rejected the Appeal by Manish Kumar (Accused No.1).
Deciding on the appeal of Vijender Gupta, the Court examined whether tweets were defamatory or not. It was opined that defamatory statements must be specific and not vague or general. The statements made in tweets could not harm the reputation of Manish Sisodia. Statements like “I will expose your scam” etc. cannot be said to be defamatory per se.
Considering this, the appeal by Vijender Gupta was allowed.
Case: Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia & Ors.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Decided On: 17.10.2022
Read Judgment @LatestLaws
Picture Source :
